2. The Present Agrarian Programme of the R.S.D.L.P.

The present agrarian programme of the Social-Democratic
Party, which was adopted at the Stockholm Congress, marks a great step
forward in comparison with the preceding one in one important respect,
viz., by recognising confiscation of the
landlords’[1]
estates, the Social-Democratic Party resolutely took the path of
recognising the peasant agrarian revolution. The words in the
programme:
“... supporting the revolutionary actions of the peasantry, including the
confiscation of the landlords’ estates”, quite definitely express
that idea. In the course of the discussion at the Stockholm Congress, one of
the reporters, Plekhanov, who together with
John[3] sponsored that programme, spoke frankly about the necessity of
ceasing to be afraid of a “peasant agrarian
revolution”. (See Plekhanov’s report. Minutes of the
Stockholm Congress, Moscow, 1907, p. 42.)

One would have thought that this admission—that our bourgeois
revolution in the sphere of agrarian relations must be regarded as a
“peasant agrarian revolution”—would have put an end to
the major differences of opinion among Social-Democrats on the question of
the agrarian programme. Actually, however, differences arose over the
question whether Social-Democrats should support division of the landlords’
estates among the peasants. as private property, or municipalisation of the
landlords’ estates, or nationalisation of all the land. First of all,
therefore, we must definitely establish the fact, all too often forgotten
by Social-Democrats, that these questions can be correctly answered
only from the standpoint of the peasant agrarian revolution in
Russia. Of course, it is not a question of Social-Democracy refraining from
independently defining the interests of the proletariat, as a separate
class, in this peas ant revolution. No. It is a question of having a clear
idea of the character and significance of the peasant agrarian revolution
as. one of the forms of the bourgeois revolution in general. We cannot
“invent” any particular reform “project”. We must
study the objective conditions of the peasant agrarian revolution in
capitalistically developing Russia; on the basis of this objective
analysis, we must separate the erroneous ideology of the different classes
from the real content of the economic, changes, and determine what, on the
basis of those real economic changes, is required for the development of
the productive forces and for the proletarian class struggle.

The present agrarian programme of the R.S.D.L.P. recognises (in a
special form) the conversion of the confiscated lands into public property
(nationalisation of forests, waters and lands for colonisation, and
municipalisation of privately owned lands), at any rate in the event of the
“victorious development of the revolution”. In the event
of “unfavourable conditions”, the principle of
dividing the landlords’ lands among the peasants as private
property is adopted. In all cases, the property rights of the peasants and
small landowners generally to their present holdings are
recognised. Consequently, the programme provides for a dual system
of land tenure in a renovated bourgeois Russia: private ownership of land,
and (at least in the event of the victorious development of the revolution)
public, ownership in the form of municipalisation anti nationalisation.

How did the authors of the programme account for this duality? First of all, and
above all, by. the interests and demands of the peasantry, by the fear of
drifting apart from the peasantry, the fear of setting the peasantry against
the proletariat and against the revolution. By advancing such an
argument the authors and the supporters of the programme took the stand of
recognising the peasant agrarian revolution, the stand of proletarian
support for definite peasant demands. And that argument was advanced by the most
influential supporters of the programme, headed
by Comrade John! To become convinced of this, it is sufficient to glance at
the Minutes of the Stockholm Congress.

That argument was directly and categorically advanced by Comrade John
in his report. “If the revolution,” he.said, “were to
lead to an attempt to nationalise the peasants’ allotments, or to
nationalise the lands confiscated from the landlords, as Comrade. Lenin
suggests, such a measure would lead to a counter-revolutionary movement,
not only in the borderlands, but also in the central part of the
country. We would have not one
Vendée,[4] but a general revolt of the peasantry against
attempts by the state to interfere with the peasants’ own
[John’s italics] allotments, against attempts to nationalise the
latter.” (Minutes of the Stockholm Congress, p. 40.)

That seems clear, does it not? The nationalisation of the peasants’
own lands would lead to a general revolt of the peasantry! That is
the reason why Comrade X’s original municipalisation scheme, which had
proposed to transfer to the Zemstvos not only the private lands,
but “if possible” all the lands (quoted by me in the pamphlet
Revision of the Agrarian Programme of the Workers’
Party[2]
),
was replaced by Maslov’s municipalisation scheme, which proposed
to exempt the peasants’ lands. Indeed, how could they ignore the
fact, discovered after 1903, about the inevitable peasant revolt against
attempts at complete nationalisation? How could they refrain from adopting
the stand point of another noted Menshevik,
Kostrov,[5] who exclaimed in Stockholm:

“To go to the peasants with it [nationalisation] means
antagonising them. The peasant movement will go on apart from or against
us, and we shall find ourselves thrown over board in the
revolution. Nationalisation deprives Social-Democracy of its strength,
isolates it from the peasantry and thus also deprives the revolution of its
strength” (p. 88).

One cannot deny the force of that argument. To try to nationalise the
peasants’ own land against their wishes in a peasant agrarian
revolution! Since the Stockholm Congress believed John and Kostrov, it is
not surprising that it rejected that idea.

In view of the importance of the question of an all-Russian
Vendée against nationalisation, a brief reference to history will
not be out of place.

Notes

[1]The text of the programme (Point 4) speaks of privately owned
lands. The resolution appended to the programme (the second part of the
agrarian programme) speaks of confiscation of the landlords’
estates. —Lenin

[4]Vendáe—a department in Western France where,
during the French bourgeois revolution in the late eighteenth century, a
counter-revolutionary
insurrection of the ignorant and reactionary peasantry took place, directed
against the Republic. The insurrection was staged by the Catholic clergy,
the nobles, and royalist émigrés, and supported by England.

Vendée became a synonym for reactionary revolts and hot-beds of
counter-revolution.